NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Events => Topic started by: ProtoPatriot on July 17, 2013, 08:49:55 PM
-
Anyone ever think about doing a social greeting party?
Nothing necessarily political or issue oriented; just to get to know each other, make contacts, and such....just have a fun time.
Basically, a big cook-out BBQ.... BYOB/BYOM/BYOS
If I had a large enough property, I wouldn't care to just have it at my place...but that just ain't possible.
-
I have attended 3 breakfast meet and greet events, that are informal and mainly to get to put a face with a name type of things.
I think there would be interest in something like you describe.
Greg58
-
Ild be game for something like this. I know the Coffee meetings I have put together have been well recieved. This would be the next logical step.
-
I also feel that this could be a good thing.
If nobody has a farm, my first thought is to take over some city park, like maybe Gretna, Louisville, Weeping Water, Greenwood ?
Stay away from the State Parks.
-
We are having a big one on August 24th in Grand Island at Heartland 8)
http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,8788.0.html (http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,8788.0.html)
-
We are having a big one on August 24th in Grand Island at Heartland 8)
http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,8788.0.html (http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,8788.0.html)
Yes, there's that...but I was meaning something separate...something non-specific.
That is to discuss organization business and such as well as to socialize a bit.
Maybe regional since people in the East may have trouble getting to places out west and vice verse (I know driving out to Grand Island for me will be very difficult - even with it being only 2 hour drive - if I am even lucky to get the day off).
-
I guess it is all about priorities...
-
I guess it is all about priorities...
Nothing against that other stuff, I just mean to try and bring people closer together between other things and official meetings.
We got to stick together after all.
If you mean getting out to Grand Island...I would love to, but I have asked for so much time off and schedule changes lately, I don't think they will give me another...especially since I will be getting back from vacation on the 20th.
-
I'm still inside my 90 at work. If I ask for time off they would probably tell me I can have plenty.:(
-
I've been to one of the Saturday morning coffee meet & greets. No reason not to have another. Feel free to put out an invite that's convenient for you ProtoPatriot.
-
Anyone know the name of that farm that all those concerts take place at, the one south of Omaha/Lincoln?
Gretna closes their parks at 11pm, so we would have to close down at 10pm for cleanup.
Also, when and where are these coffee greetings?
-
Proto,
I usually throw together a Weekend Coffee with about 2 weeks notice, I always post them up in the general Discussion Forum.
Speaking of which, we should be due for another...
-
If someone has a place to meet and I can make it I'll bring my smoker and make some BBQ.
-
I am going to be doing some research on where we could do something like this.
Doing things out at a farm could be difficult being that setting up a fire pit would probably be problematic and electricity difficult.
A city park would have noise issues as well as if people want to bring alcohol (Gretna does not allow alcohol in parks, not sure about others yet)...
Why can't I just have the money to by the 20 acres just outside of West Point...would just do it there...oh...keep dreaming.
Proto,
I usually throw together a Weekend Coffee with about 2 weeks notice, I always post them up in the general Discussion Forum.
Speaking of which, we should be due for another...
Cool, I will keep my eye out.
-
usually these gatherings are in the morning, i don't know many who drink in the morning. plus we'd all be carrying, so alcohol is a no-no anyway. but i'm in if i can make it.
-
How about some place like one of the shelters at Mahoney State Park?
-
usually these gatherings are in the morning, i don't know many who drink in the morning. plus we'd all be carrying, so alcohol is a no-no anyway. but i'm in if i can make it.
I was talking about the BBQ when I was mentioning the alcohol, which would be strange to have in the morning.
Now sure, overuse of alcohol + firearms = bad/misuse of both ... but responsible use of both is not going to cause any trouble ... not to mention it's their right to do so and if they do misuse either, they must deal with the consequences for their actions on their own as the individual they are.
How about some place like one of the shelters at Mahoney State Park?
Possibly, but state parks could bring some various other issues just the same as city parks. I'll have to check costs and restrictions.
One thought would be maybe the facility at the Fremont chapter of the Izaak Walton League... they rent their club house out for $500 a day and if someone is a member to facilitate getting the place, it could be 50% off.
-
There is never a strange time for BBQ. There is also no time for alcohol and firearms to be in the same place. I think you will find these statements to be widely accepted here.:)
-
Miss Michaella and I have been talking about getting something going as far as an open carry get together for quite a few weeks now since her and my posts about open carry/gathering were somewhat of a hot button item. We have also asked advice and opened this to Caleb from Nebraska Open Carry. If we can make this happen and get something more solid as far as a time and place, we will let everyone know.
-
Anyone know the name of that farm that all those concerts take place at, the one south of Omaha/Lincoln?
Gretna closes their parks at 11pm, so we would have to close down at 10pm for cleanup.
Also, when and where are these coffee greetings?
Are you talking about River West Park out on the Elkhorn River? http://riverwestpark.net/ (http://riverwestpark.net/) If not- this might be an option.
-
There is never a strange time for BBQ.
I guess, I just don't think of breakfast type items when I think "BBQ" ...I think dinner.
There is also no time for alcohol and firearms to be in the same place. I think you will find these statements to be widely accepted here.:)
Now that, however, depends on the individual person and their individual level of responsibility...there is no such thing as universals...things must be dealt with on individual to individual basis. After all, each individual is responsible for their actions alone, no one else is and to that, ONLY the individual that commits the harmful actions should suffer any form of consequences (there is no harm in drinking and having firearms or other weapons, the only harm is when that person uses them on another person or damages property of another).
Never should a law/standard be put in place in order to create a breaking of the law to create a perceived problem. We need to stop trying to prevent things so much, it doesn't work and only infringes on the freedom of those that did nothing.
-
Well I would venture to guess that a lot of films here have their CHP and carry, and it just so happens that the limit for alcohol in your system while carrying is 0.000... period. So we can have an unarmed gathering and bbq and booze it up or we can stay armed and forego the booze. Or mix and match and abstain if you wish to stay armed.
Just what the gun haters want is to have a gun and booze bust during a social gathering of this fine organization...
-
Well I would venture to guess that a lot of films here have their CHP and carry, and it just so happens that the limit for alcohol in your system while carrying is 0.000... period. So we can have an unarmed gathering and bbq and booze it up or we can stay armed and forego the booze. Or mix and match and abstain if you wish to stay armed.
Just what the gun haters want is to have a gun and booze bust during a social gathering of this fine organization...
So lets perpetuate the punishing of those that have done no wrong because someone else has?
I understand what the law says and society's view, but they are both wrong.
-
So lets perpetuate the punishing of those that have done no wrong because someone else has?
I understand what the law says and society's view, but they are both wrong.
I can understand your differing philosophies for individualism vs collectivism and I understand the value and benefit of both. However, we don't live in absolutes and we never will. We will always be a country rooted in both of those in a combined state... "WE" the people; right of the "people" to keep and bear arms; so on and so on. Our framers were very collective in their wordings to galvanize our nation and our shared individual freedoms.
That being said, a DUI citation doesn't exist just to punish drunk drivers that haven't killed anyone. It exists to keep people from driving drunk to prevent the very real elevated statistics of death because of that behavior. If you are a pure individualist philosophically, then you simply can not ever state, express, or rely on any stereotype in a form. Stereotyping in societies is collectivist grouping based on real or perceived increases in frequency.
The real or perceived stereotype of a bunch of drunk hill billies out in KneeBrasky tottin around guns is pure (canon) fodder for our opponents.
-
I gave the DUI as the example because it is a much more common example of a comparable "impaired" person with a weapon (vehicle) and another "impared" person with weapon (CCW). In both cases in order to receive a license, we freely submitted to a set of rules by which to use those objects. I know, I know... the constitution is our permit to carry (bear), but we got the licenses anyways for a reason.
-
I guess my view was that if there is alcohol around and I am armed, ill find somewhere else to be.
-
Collective to a point, but based on principles of individualism. Voluntarism, not forced by society/government through laws. You can't regulate responsibility, accountability, morality, ethics, etc....it is a literal impossibility and morally wrong.
The framers recognized we had to work together, but not at the expense of individual freedom.
Politics is dead. We have lost that battle. If it was 50-60 years ago...or even just 30 years ago, we may still have had a chance to fix things peacefully...but that time has come and gone...things can no longer be fixed from within the system.
Driving drunk is not the problem, the assault or murder should one actually occur is. There is no harm in the act of driving drunk. Until harm is done, then there is no problem. So until that accident involving another person occurs, no harm has occurred thus no problem (if no other person or other persons property is involved, there is no harm done as you cannot victimize/harm yourself). Same thing applies to things like speeding, there is no harm in speeding. Speeding does not cause accidents. The person not driving according to the conditions and their skills caused the accident, their bad decision caused the accident. The harm that is occurring is the accident, should it occur. Until that occurs, no crime has been committed as no harm has been done.
No licenses, they have no legitimacy and do more harm than good, same for things like background checks or prohibitions. Trying to prevent things from happening will never work (preventing life from happening is not the way to go about things), nor is it a good thing to do... in fact infringing on the rights of those that have done no harm is worse than any crime including murder (infringement is anything that restricts, limits, prohibits, prevents, hinders, etc.).
Things like background checks, permits, prohibitions, etc. forces people to disclose information about themselves (4th amendment violation) and ask permission to exercise their rights (general human rights violation).
Trying to keep so called "felons"/"criminals" from owning weapons is not the correct course and is vile to freedom...largely because, what felon/criminal? Once a person has been convicted of a crime, they are sentenced. Once released from incarceration upon completion of their allotted sentence, they return to being completely free and all rights reinstated. They have finished the punishment levied, it does not continue after incarceration.
Say you have 2 kids, kid A hits kid B (assault, crime has occurred). You punish (sentence) kid A to 1 week grounding to their room with no technology/toys/etc. Once that week is over, do you continue punishing kid A for hitting kid B for the rest of kid A's life? No, nor would it be right for you or anyone to do so. The same applies when dealing with all crimes in society at large (the family is a small form of society).
If a person can never be trusted around other people again, then the only permanent solution is to execute them. But if they are released to be among the rest of the people, they return to innocent and have full rights.
Things must be voluntary, based on the individual and individual situation per each individual interaction with other individuals.
Such laws are mere erosions of freedom and pushes us closer to dictatorship and slavery.
I do not negotiate nor bargain with my rights, nor do I give them up for anything. Death is preferred to not having freedom.
"Those that deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves."
"Those that would give up a little freedom/liberty for a little safety/security, deserve and will have neither."
Life and freedom are full of risks that must be accepted if you wish keep them.
-
There are only a select few true crimes out there... all other's have no real place as they are largely dependent on the views and desires of those involved.
- Murder (manslaughter, negligent murder, etc...any form of aggressively taking another person's life without provocation)
- Theft (robbery, burglary, etc...any form of taking someone's property without permission/compensation)
- Assault/Rape/vandalism/intruding (these are together because if you rape someone, you are assaulting them and if you damage/destroy another person's property you are assaulting their property and in turn them indirectly) - (you cause a car accident, you are assaulting/vandalizing someone and their property...assault is the crime being committed)
These 3 cover all other "so called" crimes. We don't need and should not have multiple laws covering the same thing.
A simple law saying "Don't murder or you will be...." ... clear, cut, and direct to the point and in plain english. It doesn't matter how the crime is done either. There is no difference in shooting, stabbing, choking, bludgeoning, etc. someone to death and should all carry the same weight and be seen the same when it comes to applying the law... one is not worse than the other.
And no self-defense is not murder. Murder is an aggressive act. Self-defense killing is a passive-reactive act (non-aggression principle).
And when it comes to certain things, it is more dangerous to have even a single law, than it is to have no laws.
Not one law restricting freedom has ever stopped/prevented a crime.
http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,9033.0.html (http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,9033.0.html)
-
I guess my view was that if there is alcohol around and I am armed, ill find somewhere else to be.
Me too
-
I guess my view was that if there is alcohol around and I am armed, ill find somewhere else to be.
Me Three.
It is always a struggle in my mind when I would like to go out to eat with my handgun, and I would also like to enjoy a cocktail.
But in my mind the 2 never mix.
Greg58
-
Answer this: If it wasn't for the absolute bias in society from people that want to dictate and control everyone....the indoctrination that has occurred over the last 100+ years...
Would you still think that mixing the 2 cannot be done responsibly?
Everyone is to be judged according to their actions and theirs alone, not the actions of others.
Frequency is meaningless.
It's sad how people have grown to fear freedom...
Judging someone before they as an individual has done harm is abhorrent to being free.
-
Well, ProtoPatriot, now that you have gotten all that off your chest.... ;)
Let me start by saying, and I think I speak for a majority here, You are certainly preaching to the choir. Most of us feel the same way, The gubmit is encroaching on our Lives, Liberties and our pursuit of OUR Happiness, more and more everyday. (I just got done with Atlas Shrugged (homework given by Farmer Rick ;) )and it scares the beejeezus outta me how close we are to such a situation)
I believe it is absolutely none of the government's business what I do in my personal life. I am also, though, a strong supporter of the idea that my rights end where another person's rights begin and vice versa - a very blurry, yet fine line.
You write with the passion of a person that sees the onslaught coming and understands the need to do something, which most of agree.
But returning to the original subject of this thread, you have to understand, that we also have a certain level of decorum we must uphold as a Legislative Lobbying organization. It has taken the original nine, and the too few others, since, that have set aside our Social Lives, Family time, Personal/Family finances, hell, even the all precious Range Time, in pursuing more common sense legislation within this state and fighting those laws that encroach upon our freedoms.
Many hours- nay years- have been spent rubbing elbows with legislators, convincing them that we are not the stereotypical "bunch of drunken cowboys, blasting any yellow belly cheat that crosses our path", but instead, the quiet, well trained, everyday person that is simply looking to carry a firearm for defense of self or loved ones, that there would not be 'blood running in the streets'. CCW in Nebraska took no less than 3-4 years, and we are still working to get self defense laws cleaned up. It all takes time.
Why the zero tolerance for alcohol? As my instructor explained it- Nebraska has a drinking problem, and no other law has stopped it, so this is just one more attempt at curbing alcohol abuse in this state. (back to the stereotype of gun owners again)
I think what you will find with folks not wanting to include alcohol with a BBQ, are mostly those that have been around a while and know how far we have come and yet all the work that lies ahead. They are concerned with the public opinion and media outcry and the resulting loss of credibility with our fine Senators, should someone get stupid and do something stupid (which, sadly, alcohol is usually a precursor to) while attending a NFOA gathering, while sporting their NFOA gear and especially if openly carrying a scary looking firearm. We just can't risk it, no matter our personal views on individual freedom and responsibility. So please do not take any of it personally, these folks are not only looking out for themselves, but also the best interest of the Association.
All that aside, If ya'll want to have a NFOA Members picnic (outside of the annual meeting) I am all for it! I say lets us get together as much as possible, off the internet, in person, and not on the firing range. Bring the family, and let's all have a good ol' time. Lord knows, I love me some BBQ, and I make a killer mess of beans and my Camp Cobblers have been known to ruin many a diet. I envision a Family affair, with a grill or two burning up some burgers and dogs, a smoker turning out some yummy goodness, Mama's "world famous" 'tater salad/ coleslaw/ deviled eggs, plenty of sweet and sticky sauce, and gallons of fresh brewed Sweet Iced Tea. With the younguns running around playing kids games (and NOT on the cell phones or games systems!!!) , some simple picnic in the park games and of course, a hardcore horseshoes tournament. Of course, there will also be the required Glock vs. 1911 and/or .45 vs. 9mm arguments; no gathering of gun nuts is complete with them.
I'm even seeing this as a chance to invite some of our Allies in Government, and their families out for a good time and good food, in a non-work related atmosphere. And should some Foe or reporter happen by, they will see a group of law abiding gun owning, citizens having a peaceful outing in the park.
-
I believe it is absolutely none of the government's business what I do in my personal life. I am also, though, a strong supporter of the idea that my rights end where another person's rights begin and vice versa - a very blurry, yet fine line.
Yes, this is absolutely true. But this cannot be regulated as the line changes per interaction with each individual pair of individuals. It must be left to individual choice and voluntary.
Society and Government can ONLY do things through force. Only the individual has the capability to do things voluntarily.
Now, let me state this (as we did get off topic)...I said no where that I would be drinking (but yes, if I go out to eat I am armed - as always - and yes, sometimes I will have 1 or 2 max, that is me choosing to maintain control of myself and be responsible, while doing both. There is absolutely NO reason to drink so much one will become drunk for any purpose, but those that do must be dealt with at the time they cause harm, not before because up until that point, nothing wrong has happened. Making regulation for the sake of creating a problem will only do more harm.), but it is not my right to say someone else cannot as that would infringe on their rights.
Again, drinking is not the problem, just as any weapon is not the problem.
The problem is the same with everything else....people blame everyone else, the laws, etc. and not the individual that actual made the choice. No more is the individual being held accountable and responsible for anything. But again, you can't regulate those things, they must be taught from early age (for instance: today, people think it is so bad that a 6 or 8 year kid is put to work either at a store, a farm, or even at home when in reality it is a very good thing), we can only punish for the choices they make.
Kids are given no responsibilities today. By the time they are 4 they should be cleaning up after themselves to a point (sure it will take some prodding, but that is called parenting), by age 6 a kid should be able to begin to fix their own food, by age 8 a kid should be able to wash their own clothing, etc....of course give or take 1-2 years per the individuals development speed. Kids, and even adults, should not be sitting in front of computers or TVs for very long at all. Human beings belong outside, not indoors. Not sitting, Not behind a desk. This is according to human nature and physiology.
The problem is the lack of family hierarchy strength. The problem is other people getting involved in the individuals life. (yes, this was a series of problems, but they all link back to one thing: responsibility/accountability from the first step of life).
I think what you will find with folks not wanting to include alcohol with a BBQ, are mostly those that have been around a while and know how far we have come and yet all the work that lies ahead. They are concerned with the public opinion and media outcry and the resulting loss of credibility with our fine Senators, should someone get stupid and do something stupid (which, sadly, alcohol is usually a precursor to) while attending a NFOA gathering, while sporting their NFOA gear and especially if openly carrying a scary looking firearm. We just can't risk it, no matter our personal views on individual freedom and responsibility. So please do not take any of it personally, these folks are not only looking out for themselves, but also the best interest of the Association.
When I first thought of this BBQ idea, it was (as stated) non-political... I did not mean that it would NFOA sponsored. Just because the people at the event are largely members and such, means nothing.
Nor did I say that we would/have to be displaying NFOA banners or such. Now of course, if we wanted to, we would have to come to a consensus (which I knew well before we even started talking what that decision would be) as it would be representing an organization of multiple people, each gets a say and a single vote.
common sense legislation within this state and fighting those laws that encroach upon our freedoms.
The ONLY"common sense legislation" or "reasonable legislation" when it comes to rights is protecting them further, which requires restricting the group and government from touching the individual. Otherwise, there is no such thing.
Again, the group, government, organization, business has no rights....all rights are held by the individual only.
No compromises, no negotiations, no bargaining when it comes to rights. Again, it's more dangerous to have even one-single law, than it is to have no laws at all when it comes to rights.
The whole purpose of the idea about a BBQ was purely fun. Non-political, no sociological...kind of to forget just for a few hours of the problems out there.
Now as for politics itself....they are dead, there is no coming back from where we are politically, sociologically, or economically. The nation is bankrupt. Every single individual is bankrupt and they don't even realize it. It is people's very life that is the currency and our dictators/oligarchy have sold us.
The last 2 elections (actually, the last 50 years) have shown where things lay ....and no people are not changing for the better.
The whole reason for the gold standard was to restrict government further and have something of true value backing the money...not just a mere promise. The oligarchy we call government has changed our Constitution from bindings on government to bindings on the people....and the people did nothing.
Frankly, people need to remember what it is like to be under a dictatorship again, so they can realize why socialistic ideals are bad and why our fore-fathers fought a bloody revolution for our INDIVIDUAL freedoms in the first place (not the freedoms of the group, but the freedoms held by the individual). So at this point, I say let it come.
-
Enough of this "laws don't deter crime" crap. 1982 almost 22,000 deaths by DUI and in 2008 there was 11,000... obviously with the number of drivers increasing and the deaths cut in half it is completely impossible to attribute that halving the death count to DUI to only car safety improvements...
If murder, assault, and theft were the only crimes that we needed to punish people for (punishment to prevent those maybe) and there was absolutely no benefit to a hybrid of a social (not socialism) collective with individual freedoms then we wouldn't have a freakin constitution... the founders would have said screw it, we don't need a constitution, we only need three laws. Obviously that isn't the case. I think they got it right...
Your philosophy is ungrounded in any sense of reality. Pure individualism is basically pure anarchy and we have the distinct pleasure of living in a structured government that though it has seen better days, still places us with the greatest opportunity for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness that has ever existed on this planet.
-
Enough of this "laws don't deter crime" crap. 1982 almost 22,000 deaths by DUI and in 2008 there was 11,000... obviously with the number of drivers increasing and the deaths cut in half it is completely impossible to attribute that halving the death count to DUI to only car safety improvements...
The law had nothing to do with that. It's people taking responsibility and having things like taxi's, designated drivers, etc. ...Education has lowered the numbers, not the law.
People aren't making these decisions because of the law, it's because it's in their best interest to make such decisions as getting a designated driver and such. It keeps them safe, it keeps them from paying expensive car damages, it keeps them from assaulting/murdering someone, etc.
And no car safety improvements had nothing to do with it either.
By your claim, gun control should work which means reduced gun ownership would mean less violence....which we all know is completely false as we see in places like the UK (the most violent place in all of Western Europe), Australia (where their violence continues to increase), Chicago, New York, California, etc.
Was it the gun control law that reduced the accidentals with firearms? No, it was education, it was the individual choosing to be responsible.
Have background checks stopped the supposed "criminal" from getting a gun? No, but innocent people are being treated like criminals.
Have licensing and permits done anything? No, they haven't....but they have slowly eroded a right into privilege...just as all the others have.
Has confiscations of anything ever stopped something bad from happening? No, but in the case of armaments, it's resulted in the deaths of millions.
If murder, assault, and theft were the only crimes that we needed to punish people for (punishment to prevent those maybe) and there was absolutely no benefit to a hybrid of a social (not socialism) collective with individual freedoms then we wouldn't have a freakin constitution... the founders would have said screw it, we don't need a constitution, we only need three laws. Obviously that isn't the case. I think they got it right...
Did I say there weren't more? No, just that most fall under those categories. I am saying, laws that actually target the real problem....however the issue we have is not something any amount of laws can correct.
Drugs don't harm anyone and being that you cannot victimize yourself. It is the crimes they commit in their pursuit of more drugs that causes harm to others....all done under their own free will and choice.
And it's funny how you mention the Constitution...has it stopped the politicians (the worst kind of criminal) from manipulating it, claiming it to be a living document, ignoring it? Has it been enforced? No, it has done nothing.
The laws do nothing. Only people can and education is the true weapon.
Your philosophy is ungrounded in any sense of reality. Pure individualism is basically pure anarchy and we have the distinct pleasure of living in a structured government that though it has seen better days, still places us with the greatest opportunity for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness that has ever existed on this planet.
And no, I am not saying anarchy in any form. Just a little government, enough you know it's there, but doesn't get in your way...doesn't make things more difficult for the individual than life already does.
There are only 2 true forms of government in the world:
1) Republic = rule by law - no majority or minority oppression
2) Oligarchy = rule by the few = this is where socialism, communism, dictatorship, monarchy, etc fit.
Anarchy and democracy are mere transition governments to one of those 2.
And no, this is not the government the founders set up...and no, this is not the country of the free anymore.
Actually, they are very well grounded...they just aren't clouded by emotion.
Remember the founders wanted the individual to govern themselves for the most part....not some group.
-
This is steadily turning into something completely unrelated to what it was originally posted as.
Proto, proceed with your plan to get members together, but know this: If alcohol and firearms are to be in the same location at the same time, I and those of my mindset will be absent.
-
Proto, proceed with your plan to get members together, but know this: If alcohol and firearms are to be in the same location at the same time, I and those of my mindset will be absent.
Read my reply to NE Bull
-
This is steadily turning into something completely unrelated to what it was originally posted as.
Proto, proceed with your plan to get members together, but know this: If alcohol and firearms are to be in the same location at the same time, I and those of my mindset will be absent.
Agreed. I have never known a responsible gun owner that went to a range or a hunter that had or was consuming alcohol. In this day and age with the media bias towards gun ownership you will find that alcohol and guns together are not acceptable. The last thing we want is some drunk Nebraskan getting in trouble while carrying or God forbid someone gets killed. Some folks here have worked very hard as lobbist's and with social networking and as board members and a lot of members just word of mouth trying to enact a positive viewpoint of our rights and preserve them as they should be. Someone else said it it already, you will find that sentiment widely agreed on here.
-
All that aside, If ya'll want to have a NFOA Members picnic (outside of the annual meeting) I am all for it! I say lets us get together as much as possible, off the internet, in person, and not on the firing range. Bring the family, and let's all have a good ol' time.
Seems like decades ago a few of us met up out on Jay's farm for some bowling pin, a burger and some salads, and some iced tea ....... and here we are today .....
I like the idea ...... finding the time is the hard part.
-
Agreed. I have never known a responsible gun owner that went to a range or a hunter that had or was consuming alcohol. In this day and age with the media bias towards gun ownership you will find that alcohol and guns together are not acceptable. The last thing we want is some drunk Nebraskan getting in trouble while carrying or God forbid someone gets killed. Some folks here have worked very hard as lobbist's and with social networking and as board members and a lot of members just word of mouth trying to enact a positive viewpoint of our rights and preserve them as they should be. Someone else said it it already, you will find that sentiment widely agreed on here.
I take it you haven't read through the whole discussion and I direct you to my reply to NE Bull. Or even the rest of the conversation.
-
I know there are a lot of people in both Lincoln and Omaha and there is a nice BBQ joint right in the middle. Parker's Smokehouse near Ashland (halfway for both folks) has some god food and they have a separate room in there that might be good to house a bunch of folks. I didn't see a no CCW sign when I went there last.
That might work for a catered event vs one that we provide the food ourselves.
-
I know there are a lot of people in both Lincoln and Omaha and there is a nice BBQ joint right in the middle. Parker's Smokehouse near Ashland (halfway for both folks) has some god food and they have a separate room in there that might be good to house a bunch of folks. I didn't see a no CCW sign when I went there last.
That brings another good point up AWick....do we want to have it outside or inside?
I'm a big fan of outside, even with the heat...though shade would prove difficult outside of a state or city park.
If done outdoors and during day time, maybe find a lake location for a bit of swimming/tubing?
Also, if people don't want to cook, things can still be catered to an outdoor venue.
-
I am going to say one final thing on alcohol...
The same stigma you have all expressed about alcohol is the same expressed about firearms. You are accusing someone for doing wrong before they have even done anything based on the actions of someone else. You claim it can't be responsibly done. You claim that it is impossible to mix alcohol and firearms or driving. This is however wrong - now please see this with logic, not emotion.
With alcohol, if you get drunk, you have overused/misused alcohol. If you drink (or any other drug) and lose control of yourself even in the slightest, you have misused alcohol. This misuse is what you are referring to. Alcohol is not about getting drunk. Though those things masquerading as beer (bud, miller, Coors, etc. are not beer, they are what you piss out after drinking beer) perpetrate this misuse by encouraging large consumption.
As I said, you can mix alcohol and firearms or driving responsibly...it's called being responsible and limiting yourself. If you lack self-control and responsibility then 0 is your number. If you have self-control and responsibility, your number is based on body size, weight, and such...for me, I chose a total of 1 pint to be my max which actually well below my tolerance. Even in my own home I will not go over this amount, because you never know when you will need to be able to react. Believe me, I know what you are saying, I am struggling to teach somrone this very concept of being responsible and limiting yourself (but they, as so many, have that liberal attitude and overuses - they believe the purpose is to get drunk and lose control, something no one should ever do with anything... but that is not all that bad as I am there still in control...which is the same problem as I mentioned: they are pushing their responsibility to control themself onto me so they can be irresponsible and have a false sense of feeling good about it..that is what regulations are today).
But it is the individuals choice on their limitation, they cannot be forced into it...nor is it right to force someone into anything.
The problem we have in country has nothing to do with alcohol, firearms, or anything else. The problem we have cannot be regulated or controlled in any fashion. We have a family structure and lack of responsibility problem. And everytime we push for regulation, we are taking responsibility off the individual (the only place it belongs) and placing it along with the power we held with that responsibility on/in government.
I do not take alcohol lightly just as I do not take firearms lightly. But the problem has nothing to do with what the laws and everyone are targeting. The problem. we have cannot be regulated.
(btw I sale firearms for a living at the moment and am probably the biggest pusher of education you will find. Truthful, straight, and blunt education is the key, not regulation...but at the moment our education system is liberal and teaches to take no responsibility, push everything onto someone else, and is only about propaganda.)
Now with that, being that we are going to be doing this thing as a more official event... (not as originally thought of or planned to be...which seems to be a misunderstanding some may have had) ...of course absolutely no alcohol as the organization (even though out of fear) decided.
-
Nope, I didn't read the entirety of every comment. I don't have to. As much as I respect everyone here (and I do mean everyone), there isn't one member I would knowingly hang out with that was both drinking and carrying. Alcohol isn't a "switch" that you can turn on or off. Two beers on a Friday night in your living room will likely have no effect on you. Two beers on a hot, sunny Saturday afternoon might.
I admire and respect any person I meet that has taken the initiative to get their CCP. I would be just fine with my daughter or I either one standing face to face with any member here. But if there's a gathering that allows mixing of alcohol and firearms of any type...well, I'll be having coffee with gsd.
No need to reply...there's not one single published fact or an entire medical journal that could convince me to change my mind.
But, I do have a monster grill ready to start smoking whenever someone gives the word!
-
Knowing that you don't mind mixing drinking, carrying a gun and driving makes me glad I live in Lincoln.
The rest of your post, while insulting, will not be responded to by me.
-
Sorry if it seems that we're coming down on you hard and I'm glad that safety and education are your focus when selling firearms. I think, yes, there was a misunderstanding of how "formal" of an event we were talking about. I think one of the big things is that there are a good chunk of folks here that carry near 100% and in following both the letter of the law and voluntarily holding themselves to a high standard will absolutely not carry and use alcohol. If they did have to deploy their firearm and it comes back that they had consumed alcohol right before such incident, not only is that against the law because of the zero tolerance policy written into law, but they would assumed to be lacking judgement should it come down to justification of force.
Take for example a recent get together some of my friends and I had. At the time none of us were carrying (that's a big difference compared to this group), half of us had our CHP pending. We had a a fish fry out at a buddy's in-laws' farm and then went out and shot the crap out of our guns. It was a great time! towards the end of it one guy, who didn't bring in guns (big difference from this group) busted out a tall boy while we were still shooting. I kinda glared at him and his beer, but he didn't touch a single gun after that. He was done for the day. We then went back and cleanup our stuff and put away all of our guns then fired up the grill and had deer burgers and brats. This is when the beer got busted out but only after all the firearms were stowed away. I lived near by so I took mine home and then went back and enjoyed a couple of brewskies before calling it a night.
I would say that if we met at a place and a person wasn't carrying or had any firearm then I would have no problem with that person enjoying a beer or two while grilling out; even with other people around that are carrying. maybe that's where we're getting mixed up. But I would have an issue with a person that I know is carrying choose to drink because that person obviously has disregard for the law and there has been way too much work to be done to openly disregard the zero tolerance policy when it comes to the CHP. Even if it doesn't affect a person individually, the it comes to an image issue and it's those type of news headlines and statistics that we try to avoid.
It would be a wonderful and boring world if everything entirely relied on logic instead of emotion but humans are both emotional and logical. We naturally group people, objects, fears, stereotypes, statistics, and risks together. Every animal, every being does this. If I go to handle four snakes and the first three bite me, do you think I'm going to give the 4th snake the benefit of the doubt before it, as an individual snake, does me harm?
-
As far as being an official event- that's total up to whoever is setting it up. If you are going to invite some buddies over that happen to be NFOA members- so be it, but if you are going to invite the NFOA membership, then I say - GO BIG OR GO HOME :D Like I said, I would lave to see more of a family affair- Take over Central Park if need be. OR maybe check out Platte River State Park- cabins, picnic areas, etc and I bet we could talk the folks at the Outdoor Heritage Shooting Park for a group rate . Anyway- gotta go.
-
As I said, you can mix alcohol and firearms or driving responsibly...it's called being responsible and limiting yourself. If you lack self-control and responsibility then 0 is your number. If you have self-control and responsibility, your number is based on body size, weight, and such...for me, I chose a total of 1 pint to be my max which actually well below my tolerance. Even in my own home I will not go over this amount, because you never know when you will need to be able to react. Believe me, I know what you are saying, I am struggling to teach somrone this very concept of being responsible and limiting yourself (but they, as so many, have that liberal attitude and overuses - they believe the purpose is to get drunk and lose control, something no one should ever do with anything... but that is not all that bad as I am there still in control...which is the same problem as I mentioned: they are pushing their responsibility to control themself onto me so they can be irresponsible and have a false sense of feeling good about it..that is what regulations are today). But it is the individuals choice on their limitation, they cannot be forced into it...nor is it right to force someone into anything.
While I may agree with some of your points personally.
I made the choice to apply with the State for a CHP permit, and with that chioce I agreed to follow the rules.
I may not agree with all the rules that the Legislature put in the law, however by abiding by them and supporting NFOA I feel the chances of getting the rules changed down the road are improved.
Greg58
-
TL;DR
lets keep these short
-
If you can't go one evening without alcohol to attend an event with friends and guns, then that is a drinking problem and you don't have the self control you think you do.
-
I don't have a problem if YOU want to drink ....Hell, I'm having an adult beveridge right now .....but I drink at home, mostly. I am a firearm and bourbon afficianado, but not at the same time. YMMV, just don't ask me to get in the car with you.
If you want to drink in public, put the guns up. If you want to tote iron, leave the booze alone, at least in public ..... if you want to chug beers and juggle running chainsaws, do it at home, and call 911 when things go awry: THAT will be a VFD "Story for the Ages"...... yeah, I hear about ALL of the stupid stuff in the county .... I just can't talk about it with folks who are not involved in cleaning up these messes .....
I really like the idea of a social get together ..... the last one of these I attended led to the formation of this forum in it's present form ...... it was just a dozen or so people that got together on a farm and shot som pins off some tables, and had a potluck with some iced tea..... if somebody had wanted to crack a barley pop, great .....just put the guns away first.
IME, Alcohol, Firearms, Internal Combustion Engines, and Power Tools just don't play well together.
-
I just can't talk about it with folks who are not involved in cleaning up these messes .....
While I was deputy marshal in Clarks one of my duties was to make sure all the town drunks (including officials and the Catholic priest) got home safely after their Saturday night binges. On one occasion I drove a fellow home at 4 AM and walked him (almost carried) to his door. About 9 AM Sunday morning the town alarm system went off and I jumped out of bed and into the Police cruiser. I'm heading west out of town on the two lane blacktop at about 110 to 120 mph. In my rear view mirror is see the emergency vehicle coming up behind me. It passed me when I was doing about 100 mph. I was stunned to see the guy behind the wheel.... the same fellow I had to help to his door 5 hours before. The ambulance was going straight as an arrow. When I pulled ujp behind him and got out to help he was all business and sharp as a tack. Probably had a cracking headache, though.
P.S. -- the "bloody mess" was a head-on collision. Two dead, several injured.
-
And so far it seems that few have be able to comprehend what I am saying, nothing but spouting of fears and crap that society has been brainwashing people into as it urges towards socialism. That or some are understanding, but just so scared they can't comprehend allowing someone to be able to make their own choices...to live and let live... to let people make mistakes... that they don't want to see anything else.
People are so afraid to be alone/stand-alone.
I have already established that if done under the flag of NFOA, of course no alcohol, as per consensus. Also, it must be understood that I am talking about reality at large, not specifically this event. I was attacking the ideology that is trying to destroy the Constitution and this country which is found here... alcohol and firearms are two topics that happen share a similar view in society and share similar ridiculous regulations.
According to all comments so far, they are based off of what you fear or what "you can trust" or what makes you feel "uncomfortable"...but another person's rights are not based and not subject to what someone else or societies fears/whims/wants, can trust, comforts. You have no right and no business to force things. If someone wants to drink a glass of battery acid or arsenic on a daily basis, that is their choice and they have the right to do so, you have no right to stop them. If they go out and rob/burglarize places to be able to fund that, then punish them for the theft/damages done (i.e. defend yourself, your family, and your property per right of self-defense...which may mean putting a bullet in the attackers head), but the drink was not the problem. A person's intention or motives are meaningless. It doesn't matter if someone knew what they were doing, the reason, or intentions... all that matters is the actions they do that infringe on another person's rights (in other words does actual harm, emotional does not count...you should be in control of your emotions, they should not control you).
According this stupid socialistic mentality: anything that makes someone else feel uncomfortable, unsafe, disturbs, annoys, etc. is a problem... which is complete crap. To which, of course, a double standard keeps coming into play.
What happens in your life is your business and should stay your business, not to be made into someone else's business, regardless of numbers/volume/frequency.
Everyone is thinking on the lines of current society.... current society is horrible and should not be followed anywhere let alone adhered to.
If you can't go one evening without alcohol to attend an event with friends and guns, then that is a drinking problem and you don't have the self control you think you do.
You are talking about dependence there, which dependence is a bad thing for anything...especially if it involves society or government.
Did I ever say I "had" to have a drink? No, so don't accuse me of such a thing as I have said nothing of the sort. But the claim that it can't be done or mixed with other activities responsibly is ludicrous. The times it is done responsibly are not reported or heard about, just the same as the times when someone defends themselves or a mass shooting is stopped by an armed citizen is rarely heard about if at all.
Now if you want to know more in detail of my drinking (which there is very little of): Personally, I rarely drink at all, not even at my own house, not because of some law or societal views...but because alcohol has lost most of it's appeal to me, I have no use for it. I drink maybe 1 or 2 beers a month or even in 2 months time (and that I think of it, continues to grow less)...do I take a shot from time to time, sure but that is usually only a couple times a year and is left at 1 or 2 as well. I NEVER get drunk or allow myself to lose control even in the slightest (and I have had many people try to convince me to drink more and more, but I always refuse even if it means them thinking bad of me)...again that is irresponsible and and serves absolutely no purpose to become drunk or lose control. But that must be taught, it cannot be regulated.
But I know not only from experience but also empirically that it can be mixed responsibly. Sure there are a lot of irresponsible idiots out there and that is the problem.
As far as being an official event- that's total up to whoever is setting it up. If you are going to invite some buddies over that happen to be NFOA members- so be it, but if you are going to invite the NFOA membership, then I say - GO BIG OR GO HOME :D Like I said, I would lave to see more of a family affair- Take over Central Park if need be. OR maybe check out Platte River State Park- cabins, picnic areas, etc and I bet we could talk the folks at the Outdoor Heritage Shooting Park for a group rate . Anyway- gotta go.
What I originally had in mind was an informal event with the NFOA being the beginning of who may attend, not the actual base, not limited to and no intention of the like. To be an open event...you invite some friends, others invite friends....and so on. Not intended for NFOA or any other group insignia to be present on an official bases....but if that is what we want, sure why not.
And yes, it would be nice for a very large party.
Sorry if it seems that we're coming down on you hard and I'm glad that safety and education are your focus when selling firearms. I think, yes, there was a misunderstanding of how "formal" of an event we were talking about. I think one of the big things is that there are a good chunk of folks here that carry near 100% and in following both the letter of the law and voluntarily holding themselves to a high standard will absolutely not carry and use alcohol. If they did have to deploy their firearm and it comes back that they had consumed alcohol right before such incident, not only is that against the law because of the zero tolerance policy written into law, but they would assumed to be lacking judgement should it come down to justification of force.
Don't get me wrong, society has a warped view on so many things and I do recognize that they will come down on harder, twisting and completely lying about things as they desire to completely strip people of all rights (not just firearms). So, yes I do recognize and completely understand what everyone else is saying...the problem I am seeing so much fear/emotion that is not allowing people to see the real problems out there. People need to stop turning to government/society/regulation and rely on themselves...you don't provide it for yourself, you don't get it... seeking legislation is seeking others to provide it for you. If others voluntarily help those in need, that is their choice to make (which I do a lot: so much community service, so many donations made, etc.).
Following an unconstitutional law is not just wrong and appalling, it part of the reason why we are here today struggling to maintain something that should have no laws attached to it at all. It is the duty and right of people to disobey, fight back, and strike down laws that are unconstitutional or just plain appalling.
I would say that if we met at a place and a person wasn't carrying or had any firearm then I would have no problem with that person enjoying a beer or two while grilling out; even with other people around that are carrying. maybe that's where we're getting mixed up. But I would have an issue with a person that I know is carrying choose to drink because that person obviously has disregard for the law and there has been way too much work to be done to openly disregard the zero tolerance policy when it comes to the CHP. Even if it doesn't affect a person individually, the it comes to an image issue and it's those type of news headlines and statistics that we try to avoid.
I understand what everyone is trying to avoid....but also recognizing that by going along with these things is what helps them (those that wish to destroy this country, the Constitution and leave the people powerless) push more and more forward, slowly dragging us with them... either way we are losing because we are going along with things under the guise of "avoiding", "safety", "prevention", and such.
What one person deems safe or acceptable is not what another may deem safe or acceptable...and neither has a right to force their ideal onto someone else...hence why no regulation can be formed. It doesn't even matter if a majority is in agreement, if it infringes on even 1 innocent person's rights negatively, it should and cannot be allowed.
It would be a wonderful and boring world if everything entirely relied on logic instead of emotion but humans are both emotional and logical. We naturally group people, objects, fears, stereotypes, statistics, and risks together. Every animal, every being does this. If I go to handle four snakes and the first three bite me, do you think I'm going to give the 4th snake the benefit of the doubt before it, as an individual snake, does me harm?
Did I say anything against this? But you, me, nor anyone else has any no right to make that decision for another person and creating a regulation not only makes the decision for another person, but forces it down on them.
You can make the decision to avoid the "snakes" on your own (and for your children as they are under your care and are your responsibility, everything they do and choice they make is yours to bear, until they reach adulthood). But you cannot make that decision for another and you don't need a law for you to make that decision.
I never said strip emotion completely away (not possible nor a good thing to do), just don't let it dictate decisions as they will always lead you wrong in the end and are irrational. Emotion is merely a guide/assistant....logic and reasoning should be the final deciders and often they contradict emotion.
While I may agree with some of your points personally.
I made the choice to apply with the State for a CHP permit, and with that chioce I agreed to follow the rules.
I may not agree with all the rules that the Legislature put in the law, however by abiding by them and supporting NFOA I feel the chances of getting the rules changed down the road are improved.
Greg58
And if I don't get a stupid CHP/CCW permit (which does absolutely nothing but registers the person, treats innocent people like a criminal, infringes on the innocent person's rights, etc.), can I still purchase and carry concealed or otherwise as is my right to do so without paperwork or anyone knowing? No, because I am being forced (coercion and requirements are forms of force...under threat of imprisonment or other punishment). You are not doing it voluntarily as you may think you are...if you truly are doing so voluntarily, I'm sorry you are so willing to turn your right into privilege for any reason...but you have no right to make that decision for anyone else. And no, it does not show anyone that you are "taking responsibility" or anything like it...that is nothing but a trick to push for a right to be changed into a privilege so it can be taken away...nor is it anyone's right/business to demand such proof.
A right does NOT require and should never have permission, paperwork, or anything of the such attached to it...that would be called a privilege.
A right is something you are born/created with and has only one condition attached: don't infringe on another person's rights, otherwise they may use their right of self-defense against you which could mean your life. Well, how has you, me or anyone here owning a firearm and using it to defend ourselves ever infringed on another person's rights? No, it doesn't in any way (when someone attacks, they have CHOSEN to forfeit their rights and to be subject on the victim's decision of right to self-defense).
It is also NONE of societies or government business to know what I or anyone else has or whether we are carrying or not...regardless of their fears or location.
Following an unconstitutional law is not just wrong and appalling, it is a large part of the reason we are here today struggling to maintain something that should have no laws at all. It is the duty and right of the people to disobey, fight back, and strike down laws that are unconstitutional or merely appalling.
By obeying laws that are abhorrent to the Constitution, not to mention freedom itself, we give those laws authority/power/legitimacy/etc. and thus gives off the idea that the laws are desired or even acceptable.
One of the most important ways of enforcing the Constitution is by disobeying the laws passed that violate it. Just because the Supreme Court says something is within the bindings of the Constitution does NOT make it so. SCOTUS IS NOT the final say or decider...that is the people themselves.
Knowing that you don't mind mixing drinking, carrying a gun and driving makes me glad I live in Lincoln.
The rest of your post, while insulting, will not be responded to by me.
And there is the emotion... It is your choice to be insulted, I cannot control that, only you can...even though I have no idea what you are claiming to be insulting.
And if you are unwilling to read and hear people out, how could you possibly understand even in the slightest of what they are really saying?
And I know someone may come back with "what if it was your child being ran over and killed by a drunk driver"...(this is always the case, but the one who brings it up always seems to fail to think from any other point of view)...well, I would be crushed and mourn greatly, I would seek the maximum punishment for such a crime (which would be murder) for the person (should they live). No, I would not seek new legislation as the only crime committed was that of murder. Alcohol itself did not cause it to happen, the person and their irresponsibility caused it... they failed to drive their vehicle according to conditions (either them, traffic, road, weather, etc.).
Also, if someone wants to play the what-if game: what if a meteor came down and killed your kid, shall we make a law for meteors next? How about what if your kid chokes to death on a gummy bear, shall we make a law (i.e. age limits?) for gummy bears next? How about buying hot coffee and then burning yourself, shall we make a law (oops this one already did, great...lets shelter and cradle such idiots than they already are)?
Making a law to outlaw something we are uncomfortable just so we can have a false sense like we are actually doing something with is completely wrong to do and does not target the actual problem, thus the actual problem continues. Also, laws that "protect" people from themselves are ridiculous as you cannot victimize yourself (i.e. seat belt laws).
Human beings, society have not made any "progress"... we have only regressed in the last 170 years. There was no "freeing of the slaves"...it just changed from being a single group being enslaved to everyone being enslaved.
-
ProtoPatriot:
First off, I can, and did, read the entirety of your post. As a former EMT with several years of experience, I have it on first hand accounts that even your ONE pint can alter your reaction times to the point that you may wind up injuring yourself or another in a vehicular accident.
And yes, I was insulted that you intimate that anyone can drink and be in possession of a firearm. That statement is a direct slap to the laws we, when applying for our CHP, agreed to abide by.
-
First off, I can, and did, read the entirety of your post. As a former EMT with several years of experience, I have it on first hand accounts that even your ONE pint can alter your reaction times to the point that you may wind up injuring yourself or another in a vehicular accident.
And yes, I was insulted that you intimate that anyone can drink and be in possession of a firearm. That statement is a direct slap to the laws we, when applying for our CHP, agreed to abide by.
The laws we have? You mean the ones that shouldn't be there in the first place and do absolutely nothing but damage.
Your claim is that NO ONE can handle it, which is completely false. As I have said: it varies from person to person, I never said anyone could handle it, I did actually said some may not be able to, but is for them to decide. 1 beer may have impact on one person to the point where they can't handle themselves, but that doesn't mean it will on others.
And what were the other details about that wreck? Because I know there is more to those than ever gets told, people just jump on the alcohol aspect to demonize it just as they do to demonize firearms. Was it at an intersection, maybe trying to beat a light? Was it going around a dark corner faster than conditions allowed for? There hundreds of variables, but only 1 single constant: the person.
But again, it wasn't the alcohol that caused the wreck, it was the person behind the wheel. It doesn't matter if the same thing would happen if the person had 0 drinks or not (which does happen oh so often), it matters that it happened.
Thus are the risks of life must accept if we intend to be free... you can't have it both ways.
Again, your choice to be insulted.
-
Successful troll is successful. You keep thinking what you want to think. I'll keep abiding by the laws you call useless.
-
And if I don't get a stupid CHP/CCW permit (which does absolutely nothing but registers the person, treats innocent people like a criminal, infringes on the innocent person's rights, etc.), can I still purchase and carry concealed or otherwise as is my right to do so without paperwork or anyone knowing? No, because I am being forced (coercion and requirements are forms of force...under threat of imprisonment or other punishment). You are not doing it voluntarily as you may think you are...if you truly are doing so voluntarily, I'm sorry you are so willing to turn your right into privilege for any reason...but you have no right to make that decision for anyone else. And no, it does not show anyone that you are "taking responsibility" or anything like it...that is nothing but a trick to push for a right to be changed into a privilege so it can be taken away...nor is it anyone's right/business to demand such proof.A right does NOT require and should never have permission, paperwork, or anything of the such attached to it...that would be called a privilege.
Ok so I follow the Law which you call stupid, and you claim the right to carry concealed where ever and when ever you like. I like my chances when encountering Law Enforcement, over your Don Quixote approach. Good luck telling a LEO or a Judge that the SCOTUS has no authority. Keep tilting windmills...
Greg58
-
Man, come on. Now you are simply arguing for the sake of argument. Your points are perfectly valid in a utopian society...but the key word is society. Everyone is born with the same rights. They will have these rights unless they do something to lose them. You live in a society and for peace to prevail, this society makes laws. You break laws, you lose your rights.
This didn't have to get to this point. Screw the legal side of the discussion for the moment. Alcohol can and will effect judgment. If you cannot agree with this statement, you are delusional. Having a firearm in the hands of an individual with impaired judgment can lead to a very bad conclusion (notice I said "can").
Why the hell are we even arguing this?
-
I'd go to a social gathering where people are armed, alcohol or no, as long as I'm also armed. If I saw a situation I didn't like I would either address the situation or remove myself from it. Simple. Go or don't go. Don't shout someone down because their tolerance for risk is higher than yours. Oh, and a person's choice to abstain does not make them moraly superior to those who choose otherwise.
-
I agree :) I think we've gotten derailed too many times on an otherwise well intentioned fun post! I think there is plenty of philosophical debate that could rage on forever, but I think here the only debate that should still be raging would be Memphis style or Kansas City Style... to peel the membrane on ribs or not to peel the membrane. I think that if we organized something then we should just scrap this one and start over.
-
Ok so I follow the Law which you call stupid, and you claim the right to carry concealed where ever and when ever you like. I like my chances when encountering Law Enforcement, over your Don Quixote approach. Good luck telling a LEO or a Judge that the SCOTUS has no authority. Keep tilting windmills...
Greg58
First off, not a claim, it's a fact. Now of course you reign over your property as I reign mine, so you set the rules on your property as I set the rules on mine. But public areas, we own them together and we both must be able exercise our rights, but none of that requires regulation in fact regulation henders that and infringes on the rights of one for the sake of the other. Remember: your rights end ONLY where another's begins.
Second, they only have as much power as we have granted and power they should never have had in the first place.
Third, the laws are not just stupid, they are useless, wrong and do only damage, they do nothing good.
Man, come on. Now you are simply arguing for the sake of argument. Your points are perfectly valid in a utopian society...but the key word is society. Everyone is born with the same rights. They will have these rights unless they do something to lose them. You live in a society and for peace to prevail, this society makes laws. You break laws, you lose your rights.
This didn't have to get to this point. Screw the legal side of the discussion for the moment. Alcohol can and will effect judgment. If you cannot agree with this statement, you are delusional. Having a firearm in the hands of an individual with impaired judgment can lead to a very bad conclusion (notice I said "can").
Why the hell are we even arguing this?
There is no such thing as a "utopia" and we are a society made up of individuals, not groups... which has obviously been forgotten in this country. Collectivism is a horrible thing (not just a legal standpoint, but a human nature and physiological standpoint as well).
Yes, as already recognized multiple times, alcohol can impact judgement and motor skills...but it does not impact the same across everyone, some require more and some less...but that is for the individual to decide. And yes, sometimes it ends badly...but thus are the risks of life, especially if you want to live a free life.
Laws do NOT provide safety nor peace. For every law passed you give up a bit of your freedom/liberty...those that give up any amount of freedom/liberty for any amount of security/safety, deserves and will have neither.
You cannot regulate yourself into prosperity. It is deregulation that creates the greatest prosperity (as can be seen throughout history) and the individual is the only one qualified to make decisions in their lives. Self-regulation is the only way freedom can be preserved and that can only be done through voluntary interactions, not forced through regulation.
If regulation/laws created prosperity/peace...then socialism would actually work and we would already have it...but as history, recent history at that, has shown the opposite is true and always will be true. It is a liberal fantasy that thinks regulation does anything but oppression.
It is better to have freedom and danger, than peace and slavery. Freedom is inherently dangerous and every bit of it is worth it.
Peace and Freedom cannot coexist outside the individual level...that would be a utopia if it did...that would be a liberal fantasy.
I agree :) I think we've gotten derailed too many times on an otherwise well intentioned fun post! I think there is plenty of philosophical debate that could rage on forever, but I think here the only debate that should still be raging would be Memphis style or Kansas City Style... to peel the membrane on ribs or not to peel the membrane. I think that if we organized something then we should just scrap this one and start over.
Yes, I grow weary of this....so many people didn't die and I didn't break my back so people here at home can give away freedoms (not just their own but others as well, something they have no right to do) just because they want petty false sense of "safety" or some false sense of "prosperity".
http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,9738.msg68499.html#msg68499 (http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,9738.msg68499.html#msg68499)
-
It is better to have freedom and danger, than peace and slavery. Freedom is inherently dangerous and every bit of it is worth it.
This X 1000!
Now pass me some ribs and a beer and don't ask me what I've got in my pants.
-
And so far it seems that few have be able to comprehend what I am saying,
Some teachers think their job is to cover their subject matter. Better teachers believe their job is to uncover their subject matter. In my own experience as a teacher at the HS and college level, the failure of a student to understand lies entirely with the teacher. Typically, fewer than 3% of folks lack the ability to understand more than ordinary things. When kids were having difficulty understanding the fault was in my ability or methods to teach them. I kept polishing until I got the lesson across.
Making one's self clear and easier to understand is a difficult thing to do at times.
-
Some teachers think their job is to cover their subject matter. Better teachers believe their job is to uncover their subject matter. In my own experience as a teacher at the HS and college level, the failure of a student to understand lies entirely with the teacher. Typically, fewer than 3% of folks lack the ability to understand more than ordinary things. When kids were having difficulty understanding the fault was in my ability or methods to teach them. I kept polishing until I got the lesson across.
Making one's self clear and easier to understand is a difficult thing to do at times.
Very true, though explaining things like this in a forum, let alone text (especially on the fly) is practically impossible.... without tons of time and pages upon pages.
-
I, too, find that communicating philosophies and explaining different ideologies is very difficult in the forum format. I do want to say, Proto, that I appreciate your service very much and I also admire your passion. It is great to have convictions, especially the convictions that are very American and freedom-centric. We may disagree on the degree in which humans are individualistic or social til we're blue in the face. I think that both of us know that a pure individualistic society and a pure socialist society simply can't exist but to what degree society bases its norms and morals and values and how they are projected through laws or lawlessness will always vary. I think the thing that caught people off guard here was the level of philosophy that you were interjecting into very simple discussions. I'm not going to tell you to change who you are but one of the biggest things that we focus with our pro-gun lobbying is picking your battles and timing. That is everything. Just like the anti-gunners do to us, they pick their small battles and are very satisfied with even the slightest encroachment of control because they know it will lead to another small baby step. That's where the timing and picking battles comes in. This is a war over rights and to say that everything is unconstitutional and should be thrown out will normally get you laughed out of a debate because they can't paint you as a radical zealot that want kids to be able to walk into Walmart and buy a nuclear bomb. They want to assassinate your character and you hand them the button on a silver platter when you lay into the extreme right off the bat.
Cheers, and here's to gun control being a steady hand!
-
I, too, find that communicating philosophies and explaining different ideologies is very difficult in the forum format. I do want to say, Proto, that I appreciate your service very much and I also admire your passion. It is great to have convictions, especially the convictions that are very American and freedom-centric. We may disagree on the degree in which humans are individualistic or social til we're blue in the face. I think that both of us know that a pure individualistic society and a pure socialist society simply can't exist but to what degree society bases its norms and morals and values and how they are projected through laws or lawlessness will always vary. I think the thing that caught people off guard here was the level of philosophy that you were interjecting into very simple discussions. I'm not going to tell you to change who you are but one of the biggest things that we focus with our pro-gun lobbying is picking your battles and timing. That is everything. Just like the anti-gunners do to us, they pick their small battles and are very satisfied with even the slightest encroachment of control because they know it will lead to another small baby step. That's where the timing and picking battles comes in. This is a war over rights and to say that everything is unconstitutional and should be thrown out will normally get you laughed out of a debate because they can't paint you as a radical zealot that want kids to be able to walk into Walmart and buy a nuclear bomb. They want to assassinate your character and you hand them the button on a silver platter when you lay into the extreme right off the bat.
Cheers, and here's to gun control being a steady hand!
Here's the problem with that...they have already labeled us as those zealots...they have already deemed us to be "terrorists" and such...which is fine by me, they did the same to all the founders and soldiers during that civil war we call the War of Independence (or more inaccurately known as the American Revolution). Look at the schools: they are teaching things like the 2A are mere privileges, to trust government, to obey without question, that our founders were in the wrong, etc...that is how they won: media, schools, economics, government.
As I said before, we passed the brink of no return already. Anymore I say let it come... lets take the fall head on knowingly... people need a reminder of what it's like to live under an oligarchy, why people are willing to die and kill for to be free, why freedom should never be given up in any amount for any reason, why government and society should never be trusted... and sadly they must experience it to gain this reminder.
Nothing ever truly changes: we face the exact same issues and problems the founders and so many others did, fought and died over...they are just coming with a different cover.
Even those that claim to be all about freedom and rights have lost touch, but then turn around and support things that take them and restrict them... grown afraid to lose their comforts and safety nets (i.e. welfare, social security, unemployment, etc. are things that should never be allowed, they are nation destroyers and only creates dependence on government, something that should NEVER have any dependence attached to it)... and think you can fix something that is broken from the inside.
Supporting this kind of establishment and oppression has been a long standing problem... in the past they were called them "loyalists" today we call them the same or "statist".
I'm sorry, but the option of peaceful revolution is no longer available.
-
JUST FOR THE RECORD
NEVER once did I say I was "okay" or "wanted" people to be driving or handling firearms while drunk/inebriated, I even said I opposed drunkenness at all... AND ESPECIALLY NOT WHEN IN ACTUAL PROCESS OF UTILIZING A VEHICLE OR FIREARM. But it was a nice try of people to accuse, twist and manipulate as such just like people do with firearms.
But it is within the individual's right to do so and that trumps.
As I said several times: it DOES NOT MATTER what we want, what we trust, or what we fear when it comes to another person's rights.
When I said I will have a beer with dinner whether at home or restaurant (on a very rare occasion, I usually stick to water or lemonade), I literally meant 1 beer (12 ounces) and it takes me about 2 hours to finish it (if I even finish it). Not enough alcohol consumption for it to build up in a short enough time plus food (I never drink on an empty stomach, which translates to severely diluted alcohol).On top of all this, I also drink a glass of water with it.
I have taken a lot of time and effort to find out what is needed for alcohol to pass through without issue with the goal of finding a way to have a drink and mix (not meaning mix at the same time, if that is what people were thinking) with anything and everything safely and responsibly. But this only applies to me as a person's size, weight, body fat, liver functionality, tolerances, etc. must be taken into account and they must find their own level.
But are people really supporting the taking of someone's right/ability to defend themselves away just because they had a drink?